Low NOx Pelletizing, 1⁄4 Scale Test Report 20 11 -8- 24 , Project 8342, page 1 of 44 

### Summary of Findings for Presentation to the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency

Essar Steel / Minnesota Steel

Results of Testing at 1⁄4-Scale of LE Low NO X 

### Burner Prototype for StraightGrate Pelletizing Furnaces

Fives North American Combustion, Inc.

September 19, 2011Low NOx Pelletizing, 1⁄4 Scale Test Report 20 11 -8- 24 , Project 8342, page 2 of 44 

## Confidentiality and Intellectual Property

Notice

The work contained herein is the result of a collaborative engineering effort between Essar Engineering Services Limited, Essar Steel Minnesota LLC, Barr Engineering Company, Jacobs Engineering (formerly Aker Technical Services) and Fives North American Combustion, Inc.

Fives North American Combustion, Inc., owns and remains the owner of all intellectual property rights and know-how contained in this report, including those aspects that have been developed specifically for this report, as well as of all the technical documents, graphics, plans or drawings, etc., provided.Low NOx Pelletizing, 1⁄4 Scale Test Report 20 11 -8- 24 , Project 8342, page 3 of 44 

## Table of Contents

Notice

......................................................................................................................................................... 2

Table of Contents

........................................................................................................................................ 3

Executive Summary

..................................................................................................................................... 4

Ba ckground

................................................................................................................................................. 4

Scope of Testing and Evolution of Burner Design

.......................................................................................... 6

Test Parameters and Scaling

........................................................................................................................ 9

Test Results

............................................................................................................................................... 10

Considerations for Scale- up of Test Results

................................................................................................ 10

Appendix A

–

3-D Model of Test Rig and Hot Air Generator

........................................................................ 13

Appendix B

–

Phots of Test Rig and Hot Air Generator

................................................................................ 15

Appendix C

–

Copy of 8- 11 -2011 POWERPOINT presentation to MPCA

....................................................... 19

Appendix D

–

Raw Data

................................................................................................ ... Separate EXCEL FileLow NOx Pelletizing, 1⁄4 Scale Test Report 20 11 -8- 24 , Project 8342, page 4 of 44 

## Results of Testing at 1⁄4-Scale of LE Low NO X 

## Burner Prototype for Straight-Grate Pelletizing Furnaces

Executive Summary of Findings

Based on analysis and bench-scale (approximately 60:1) testing performed in an engineering study during late

2008 , a special configuration of the LE burner was designed for installation on the pelletizing furnace to be constructed and permitted a s part of Essar’s proposed new plant located near Nashwauk, MN. The analysis and bench-scale tests suggested that pelletizing furnace NO X emissions could be reduced by 80% to 90% compared to uncontrolled emissions from conventional burners installed on similar furnaces. That LE burner configuration, as well as the anticipated highest NO X (highest temperature, highest firing rate) downcomer of the 28 fired downcomers on the furnace, was modeled at 1⁄4 scale on a flow and energy input basis, which

c orresponds to 1⁄2 scale on a geometric basis. A special test rig to provide the process air and burner flows at the indicated 1⁄4 scale was constructed, and testing at process conditions was performed at FivesNA’s facility in Cleveland, OH.

The first LE burner configuration as designed and operated based on the engineering study did not perform quite as well as expected, generating NO X emissions of around 1 lb/MMBtu, which represents a reduction of around 75% compared to a baseline of 4.0 lb/MMBtu. Optimization of configuration and operating parameters for that design ultimately resulted in NOx emissions of around 0.5 lb/MMBtu. Although this level
of reduction from baseline NO X emissions is consistent with the engineering study results, evolution of both the furnace production requirements and the NO X emissions permit process have resulted in a requirement
for even lower burner NO X emissions. Therefore, investigation and testing of alternative designs was performed to identify a burner design capable of even lower NO X emissions.

The final result is the configuration described in this report, which has achieved an average emissions factor of 0.22 lb/MMBtu over three tests, each test lasting about three hours.

Background

In October 2007, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency issued Air Emission Permit No. 06100067-001 to Minnesota Steel Industries, LLC (MSI) for the production of Pellets, DRI, and Steel at a plant to be built near Nashwauk, MN. MSI was acquired by the Essar group, India in September 2007 and the facility name was subsequently changed to Essar Steel Minnesota LLC (ESML). Essar Steel Minnesota, LLC is a subsidiary of Essar
Global Limited [Essar Global”]. Essar Global is a diversified business corporation with a balanced portfolio of assets in the manufacturing and services sectors of Steel, Energy, Power, Communications, Shipping Ports & Logistics, and Construction. Essar Steel is a global producer of steel that includes existing operations in India, Canada, Middle East and Asia. Essar Steel Algoma is an integrated steel mill in Sault Ste. Marie, Canada that currently buys iron ore pellets on the open market.Low NOx Pelletizing, 1⁄4 Scale Test Report 20 11 -8- 24 , Project 8342, page 5 of 44 After acquisition of the MSI project, Essar Group initiated an assessment to determine how best to fully

i ncorporate the MSI project into its existing and planned pellet and steel making assets. Prior to purchasing

M SI, the Essar Group has been in the process of designing a number of pellet plants to be built in various locations around the world. The design basis for the se pellet plants includes a standardized indurating furnace
dimension of 744 m 2 . In line with this design dimension, ESML approached the MPCA in June 2008 to discuss the permitting implications of installing a 744 m 2 indurating furnace that would be operated in accordance with current permit limitations based on a maximum pellet making capacity of 4.1 mtpa. MPCA subsequently
asked ESML to establish that the NO X emissions from a 744 m 2 induration furnace operating at no greater than 4.1 mtpa would be within allowable limits

.

In late October of 2008, Aker Solutions, (now Jacobs Engineering) the technology supplier for the indurating furnace, and Fives North American Combustion (Fives NA ), the natural gas burner designers, were engaged by

Essar to study a gas burner technology that would ensure compliance with NO X emission limits at maximum and reduced (turn down) pellet making capacities. Th at study which came to be known at the “Low NO X ” study, incorporated analysis of results from other applications, bench-scale laboratory testing, and CFD analysis to examine the feasibility of using FivesNA low NO X LE burners to achieve NO X reductions greater than 70% in a straight-grate pelletizing furnace. The results of the study were reported to Essar in February, 2009. The study concluded that reductions of 80% to 90% in NOX emissions could be achieved using a special configuration of the FivesNA LE burner.

The Low NO X engineering study established solid underpinnings for expectations of NO X reductions approaching an order of magnitude compared to conventional burner technology. However, the unique potential of the pelletizing process for generating NOX emissions, and the small scale (~1/60) and other
limit ations of the laboratory simulation performed in the engineering study, prevented sufficiently accurate

p rediction of the NO X emissions from an actual production furnace. Analysis of FivesNA experience with laboratory simulation and burner scaling from a wide range of industrial applications suggested that a test installation at 1⁄4 scale would be sufficient for prediction of results at actual scale, and was feasible to build and install in our laboratory. A proposal was provided to build and install a 1⁄4 scale test facility, including a large

re generatively fired hot-air generator to provide the required quantity of very high temperature (1600 to 1800 F) process air to simulate the pelletizing furnace.

That proposal was accepted by Essar and the MPCA; construction of the facility was completed and testing began in early June, 2011. The scope of the testing was to include confirmation and optimization of the special LE configuration designed based on the engineering study results, as well as characterization of the

NO X emissions from the conventional inspirating type burners that have traditionally been used to fire pelletizing furnaces. A 3-D model of the test rig is shown in Appendix A, and photos of it are shown in Appendix B.

Meanwhile, the production and permit requirements continued to be developed by Essar, Jacobs, and the MPCA. When the initial phases of testing at 1⁄4 scale indicated that a burner resembling the standard LE configuration would not provide NOX emissions low enough to meet the new requirements, FivesNA and Essar agreed to change the scope of the 1⁄4 scale testing to investigate alternate burner configurations that would be capable of meeting the current requirements.

FivesNA was successful in developing a new configuration for a lean-premix fuel-staged burner, and the results of those efforts are described in this report. Those results have already been provided in summary form to Essar and the MPCA as a POWERPOINT presentation during a meeting at the FivesNA facility in Cleveland, OH on August 11, 2011. A copy of that presentation is included in Appendix C of this report.Low NOx Pelletizing, 1⁄4 Scale Test Report 20 11 -8- 24 , Project 8342, page 6 of 44 Scope of Testing and Evolution of Burner Design

Testing was performed in four phases. Those phases and their results are briefly described followed by a more detailed description of the test results for the final configuration.

The first burner configurations tested were variations of our standard LE Burner design. The LE burner is a fuel-staged, partial premix combustion system. Burner combustion air preheated to 650 F is provided to the Main Combustion Air Inlet of the burner. A small amount of ambient air (typically between 1% and 5% of the main combustion air) is supplied to the Radial Air Inlet, for the purpose of stabilizing and reinforcing the primary zone burner flame. Primary fuel is supplied to the Primary Gas Inlet, pre-mixed with the main combustion air, and burned in a Primary Reaction Zone. A small amount of fuel (typically between 1% and 3% of total fuel) is also supplied to the Radial Gas Inlet, for the purpose of stabilizing and reinforcing the primary zone pre-mix burner flame. Primary fuel is intimately mixed with the main combustion air in a series of elements internal to the burner body. These mixing elements are integrated into the stabilizer design resulting in a highly uniform, lean burning flame front. By tightly controlling the thermo-chemical state in this reaction zone, NO X production is strongly inhibited, frequently resulting in levels of less than 5 ppm NOx being formed in the primary combustion zone.

Since the primary zone operates fuel lean, secondary fuel is supplied to the Secondary Gas Inlet, bringing the overall burner fuel/air ratio to stoichiometric conditions. The secondary fuel is fed through injectors to a second combustion stage which is external to the Primary Reaction Zone. Products of the fuel-lean combustion from the Primary Reaction Zone pass through a converging outlet formed by the burner tile into the combustion chamber. The secondary fuel mixes with the lean primary-zone products of combustion, and with the process air, in the combustion chamber. In this case, the combustion chamber is the horizontal section of the process air downcomer feeding the indurating furnace.

A schematic representation of the burner initial configuration is shown in Figure 1.

Testing was initiated to determine performance of the LE burner based on the results of the engineering study, with a range of injector hardware and operating parameters specified to determine best performance of the LE burner with only minor variations in configuration from the standard burner which has an excellent
track record of ultra-low NO X emissions in various applications. The results of that initial round of testing were NOX emissions factors of approximately 1.0 lb/MMBtu. While representing a substantial reduction in NO X compared with conventional burners, those results did not meet the evolving needs of this project, nor were they consistent with the expected results from the engineering study. This initial testing did suggest qualitative trends in burner configuration and operating parameters for improving NO X emissions. The test results showed that the underlying reason for the difference was due to much higher than expected NO X emissions from the secondary fuel.Low NOx Pelletizing, 1⁄4 Scale Test Report 20 11 -8- 24 , Project 8342, page 7 of 44 

### MagnaFlame LE Technology Platform

Figure 1

A second phase of testing was undertaken to verify that the premix primary combustion in this application was performing as expected, and then adjusting the ratio of primary to secondary fuel upward to the highest level allowed by the temperature limits for the refractory used in the primary reaction zone. These tests confirmed
that the NO X from the primary combustion was exactly the same as in all previous applications of the LE burner. The adjustment of the operating parameter of primary fuel/secondary fuel ratio further improved the

NO X emissions to around 0.7 lb/MMBtu.

A third phase of testing looked at determining the optimum configuration for the external injectors. The angle and velocity of the secondary fuel injected were adjusted to maximize interaction of the secondary fuel with the products of combustion from the primary reaction zone. These adjustments resulted in NO X emissions factors of approximately 0.5 lb/MMBtu. This result is consistent with the level of NO X emissions reductions suggested by our engineering study. However, the evolution of process and production requirements and the unfolding of the permit process up to this time resulted in a requirement for significantly lower NO X emissions factors, in the range 0.2 to 0.25 lb/MMBtu. Since it appeared that any further improvements in NO X emissions for this process (iron ore pelletizing) with the standard LE platform using external injectors would be incremental, it was necessary to investigate novel approaches to this problem in order to reduce the emissions by 50% from this already historically low level.Low NOx Pelletizing, 1⁄4 Scale Test Report 20 11 -8- 24 , Project 8342, page 8 of 44 Over a period of a few days, we made several “quick and dirty” tests of some new approaches. The idea was to retain the lean premix, which our testing on the quarter-scale pelletizing rig showed to be as effective as ever, but to look at new ways of incorporating secondary fuel. One of the most promising approaches seemed to be direct forward injection of the secondary fuel within the primary reaction zone. Hardware productionwas expedited to perform further tests of this approach. The resulting configuration incorporated a highpressure forward-injection secondary fuel nozzle located on the burner axis, injecting secondary fuel at high velocity into the primary reaction zone.

After initial results looked encouraging, three test runs, each test lasting three hours, were made at production conditions, as described in this report. The results of those tests have already been summarized in a presentation made to Essar and to the MPCA at our facility here in Cleveland, and the raw data from those tests subsequently was provided to the MPCA by email on August 12, 2001. Both the presentation and the raw data are included as attachments to this report, an d the summary is repeated in the section headed “Test Results”, below.

The final configuration of the burner which is the basis for the detailed results described in this report is shown in Figure 2.

Figure 2Low NOx Pelletizing, 1⁄4 Scale Test Report 20 11 -8- 24 , Project 8342, page 9 of 44 A table summarizing the development process is shown in Figure 3 below.

1/4

- scale Testing Burner Platform Test Activities Resulting NO X Emissions Factors, lb/MMBtu

First phase LE Platform (Premix primary combustion,

external secondary injectors and external reaction zone) Range of i njector

c onfigurations (placement, orientation, fuel pressure) 1

Second phase LE Platform (Premix primary combustion,

external secondary injectors and external reaction zone) Optimize operating parameters (radial air, radial fuel, pri/sec fuel ratio ) 0.7

Third phase LE Platform (Premix primary combustion,

external secondary injectors and external reaction zone) Further o ptimize Injector

c onfiguration 0.5

Final phase New Version of LE Burner (Premix primary

combustion, direct injection of secondary fuel into primary reaction zone) Optimize burner configuration and operating
parameters 0.22

Figure 3

Test Parameters and Scaling

The Essar furnace will incorporate 28 fired downcomers; each downcomer supplying recuperated process air to be heated by a burner to the temperature required to indurate 6.5 MTPY of high-flux pellets. The downcomers are arranged in symmetric pairs, with each pair supplying one windbox. Each downcomer is to be fired with an individual LE burner. Expected flows and firing rates for the individual pairs of downcomers vary, based on expected process requirements and position in the furnace. The downcomers supplying windbox # 19 are highest in process air temperature and fired input, therefore these downcomers are expected to have the highest NOX emissions. The test rig was based on 4:1 input and flow scaling of the WB
19 downcomers.

Values of scaled parameters are shown in Figure 4.

Parameter Actual Furnace, WB # 19 Test 1 Test 2 Test 3 Downcomer Air Flow, SCFH 868,000 213,900 211,000 211,200 Downcomer Air Temperature, F 1720 1702 1700 1701 Burner Input, MMBtu LHV 24.2 6.09 6.09 6.1 Burner Combustion Air Flow, SCFH 252,000 63,900 63,900 63,800

Burner Comb

. Air Temperature, F 650 652 652 652 Burner Radial Air Flow, SCFH 10,500 1200 1200 1200 Burner Excess Air (incl Radial), SCFH 4.2% 2.0% 1.9% 1.7% Temperature Above Bed, F 2410 2276 2295 2274 Figure 4Low NOx Pelletizing, 1⁄4 Scale Test Report 20 11 -8- 24 , Project 8342, page 10 of 44 Test Results

The results of the three-hour tests are shown in Figure 5. The three-test average NO X emissions factor is 0.222 lb/MMBtu.

Parameter Test 1 Test 2 Test 3

Average NO X Emissions Factor, lb/MMBtu: 0.235 0.214 0.218

Average O2 in POC: 16.94% 16.59% 16.91% Average CO in POC (uncorrected), PPM: 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average NO X in POC (uncorrected), PPM: 42.9 42.4 40.1
NO Calibration Span Gas, PPM: 50.5 50.5 50.5

NO X analyzer zero offset, beginning of test, PPM: 0 0 0

NO X analyzer zero offset, end of test, PPM: 0 0 0.1

NO X analyzer total zero drift during test, % of span: 0% 0% 0.20%

NO X analyzer span, beginning of test (reading/offset),

PPM: 54.9/4.4 53.6/3.1 50.3/

- 0.2

NO X analyzer span, end of test (reading/offset), PPM: 53.7/3.2 53.9/3.4 49.6/

- 0.9

NO X analyzer total s pan drift during test, % of span:

- 2.38%

- 0.59%

- 1.39%

Test Duration, minutes: 180 172 178 Figure 5

The above summary was also included in the POWERPOINT presentation provided to the MPCA on August 11, 2011 and in Appendix C of this report. The raw data used to generate the summary was provided to the MPCA by email in an EXCEL file on August 12, 2011, and the EXCEL file is included as Appendix D attached as a separate file with this report.

Considerations for Scale-Up of Test Results

The engineering study considered both experience with the LE burner in other processes and the results of bench-scale tests (~60:1) in concluding that NO X emissions from a straight-grate pelletizing furnace could be reduced by 80% to 90% compared to conventional pelletizing furnace burners. Both types of analysis presented challenges with respect to prediction of actual NO X emissions from a full-scale LE burner installed on a pelletizing downcomer.Low NOx Pelletizing, 1⁄4 Scale Test Report 20 11 -8- 24 , Project 8342, page 11 of 44 In most past applications of the LE Burner with external secondary fuel injectors, there were two important differences compared to installation in a pelletizing furnace downcomer. One is that for past applications such as boilers and reheat furnaces the final products of combustion from the process furnace were low in oxygen

content

— usually less than 5%. In a pelletizing furnace downcomer, the oxygen level in the final products of combustion is typically between 15% and 18%. The second is that for the past applications of the LE, most of the mass flow and almost all of the energy input are from the burner, and therefore the burner design usually is the dominant factor in determining mixing of the secondary fuel with the furnace atmosphere and the primary products of combustion. In a pelletizing furnace downcomer, the process air flow is the dominant factor in determining the mixing of the other flows with the secondary fuel, and the burner has a lesser influence on the mixing dynamics in the combustion chamber.

The significance of these two factors with respect to predicting the performance of the LE based on previous applications in different processes is that the external injectors make a disproportionate amount of the total

NO X , and the differences between the types of proces ses don’t impact the premix NO X, but do impact the NO X from secondary fuel injected into the combustion chamber. Injecting the secondary fuel directly into the premix products of combustion in the primary reaction zone provides a more predictable result, since the primary reaction zone conditions are only weakly affected by the process, even in a pelletizing furnace. This is because much of the primary reaction zone is shielded from the process flow by being inside the burner tile. Even the part of the combustion reaction that takes part outside of the burner tile in the combustion chamber is less affected by the process, because the secondary fuel is already partly combusted in the low-oxygen products of combustion inside the tile, and is already significantly vitiated before it ever has a chance to be affected by the process air flow.

With respect to scale-up, important questions are:

 Does the test scale permit accurate geometric scaling?

 Is the behavior of the parameter(s) of interest ( NO X emissions) over the range of the scaled parameters (geometry, energy inputs, mass flows) consistent and well-understood? For the bench-scale testing conducted in the engineering study, the scale of 1/60 was too small to faithfully scale all of the geometric and flow parameters, such as burner flow area to downcomer flow area, injector number and placement, and process flow velocity. (Despite these limitations, the bench-scale testing did provide a good indication of the level of NO X reductions achievable, since the indicated level of NO X reduction from base-case of almost 90% was achieved by the LE with external injectors, although with some adjustment of the burner configuration and operating parameters.) In the 1⁄4 scale test rig, the cross-sectional area scaling was very representative of actual furnace geometry, as were the energy inputs and flows.

The behavior of the NO X emissions over the scaled range has two components

— NO X from the premixed fuel
and NO X from the injector fuel. The 1/60 scale bench rig was clearly too small to accurately predict results for
the NO X from the injector fuel at larger scale. This was demonstrated by the fact that both the injector configuration and the primary/secondary fuel ratio had to be adjusted to achieve the same level of NO X reduction on the 1⁄4 scale rig as was achieved with the 1/60 scale test. The bench rig did provide a reasonable indication of the contribution of the premix NO X , even with the limitations in accurate geometric scaling described above. We would expect that the 1⁄4 scale rig is sufficient to allow accurate prediction of external injector NO X , but we are even more confident in predicting full-scale results for the configuration reported here, because the secondary fuel is injected directly into the premix reaction zone, rather than externally to the primary reaction zone in the combustion chamber.Low NOx Pelletizing, 1⁄4 Scale Test Report 20 11 -8- 24 , Project 8342, page 12 of 44 A premix-only version of the LE burner, known as the LEx burner, designed to operate lean without a second stage of fuel injected externally to bring the burner to stoichiometric fuel/air ratio, has been applied to commercial applications with single burners ranging in size from 1 MMBtu/hr to 400 MMBtu/hr. Premix-only

NO X is very consistent across this entire range. Obviously, both the 1⁄4 scale burner at 6.5 MMBtu/hr and the
fu ll -scale burner operating at 26 MMBtu/hr fall well within the commercial range of sizes for the LE and LEx burners. The premix NO X for the tested version of this burner was verified as being completely consistent with the results from numerous successful commercial applications of the burner.

In summary:

1. Lean premix NO X has been demonstrated to be transferable across a wide variation of applications.

2. Lean premix NO X has already been demonstrated to be consistent across a much wider scale of inputs than is represented by the scale from the test rig to the actual pelletizing furnace.

3. The lean premix NO X has been demonstrated on the test rig to be consistent with historic performance.

4. The secondary fuel injection for the burner configuration reported here has been moved from being injected externally to being injected directly into the primary reaction zone, where it is partially
sh ielded from process effects.

We therefore believe that NO X emissions in the actual furnace should be consistent with those measured at
the 1⁄4 scale test conditions.

Respectfully submitted,

Bruce Cain Research EngineerLow NOx Pelletizing, 1⁄4 Scale Test Report 20 11 -8- 24 , Project 8342, page 13 of 44 

## Appendix A
3-D Model of Test Rig and Hot Air GeneratorLow NOx Pelletizing, 1⁄4 Scale Test Report 20 11 -8- 24 , Project 8342, page 14 of 44Low NOx Pelletizing, 1⁄4 Scale Test Report 20 11 -8- 24 , Project 8342, page 15 of 44 

## Appendix B Photos of Test Rig and Hot Air GeneratorLow NOx Pelletizing, 1⁄4 Scale Test Report 20 11 -8- 24 , Project 8342, page 16 of 44Low NOx Pelletizing, 1⁄4 Scale Test Report 20 11 -8- 24 , Project 8342, page 17 of 44Low NOx Pelletizing, 1⁄4 Scale Test Report 20 11 -8- 24 , Project 8342, page 18 of 44Low NOx Pelletizing, 1⁄4 Scale Test Report 20 11 -8- 24 , Project 8342, page 19 of 44 

## Appendix C

8- 11 -2011 POWERPOINT Presentation to the MPCALow NOx Pelletizing, 1⁄4 Scale Test Report 20 11 -8- 24 , Project 8342, page 20 of 44Low NOx Pelletizing, 1⁄4 Scale Test Report 20 11 -8- 24 , Project 8342, page 21 of 44Low NOx Pelletizing, 1⁄4 Scale Test Report 20 11 -8- 24 , Project 8342, page 22 of 44Low NOx Pelletizing, 1⁄4 Scale Test Report 20 11 -8- 24 , Project 8342, page 23 of 44Low NOx Pelletizing, 1⁄4 Scale Test Report 20 11 -8- 24 , Project 8342, page 24 of 44Low NOx Pelletizing, 1⁄4 Scale Test Report 20 11 -8- 24 , Project 8342, page 25 of 44Low NOx Pelletizing, 1⁄4 Scale Test Report 20 11 -8- 24 , Project 8342, page 26 of 44Low NOx Pelletizing, 1⁄4 Scale Test Report 20 11 -8- 24 , Project 8342, page 27 of 44Low NOx Pelletizing, 1⁄4 Scale Test Report 20 11 -8- 24 , Project 8342, page 28 of 44Low NOx Pelletizing, 1⁄4 Scale Test Report 20 11 -8- 24 , Project 8342, page 29 of 44Low NOx Pelletizing, 1⁄4 Scale Test Report 20 11 -8- 24 , Project 8342, page 30 of 44Low NOx Pelletizing, 1⁄4 Scale Test Report 20 11 -8- 24 , Project 8342, page 31 of 44Low NOx Pelletizing, 1⁄4 Scale Test Report 20 11 -8- 24 , Project 8342, page 32 of 44Low NOx Pelletizing, 1⁄4 Scale Test Report 20 11 -8- 24 , Project 8342, page 33 of 44Low NOx Pelletizing, 1⁄4 Scale Test Report 20 11 -8- 24 , Project 8342, page 34 of 44Low NOx Pelletizing, 1⁄4 Scale Test Report 20 11 -8- 24 , Project 8342, page 35 of 44Low NOx Pelletizing, 1⁄4 Scale Test Report 20 11 -8- 24 , Project 8342, page 36 of 44Low NOx Pelletizing, 1⁄4 Scale Test Report 20 11 -8- 24 , Project 8342, page 37 of 44Low NOx Pelletizing, 1⁄4 Scale Test Report 20 11 -8- 24 , Project 8342, page 38 of 44Low NOx Pelletizing, 1⁄4 Scale Test Report 20 11 -8- 24 , Project 8342, page 39 of 44Low NOx Pelletizing, 1⁄4 Scale Test Report 20 11 -8- 24 , Project 8342, page 40 of 44Low NOx Pelletizing, 1⁄4 Scale Test Report 20 11 -8- 24 , Project 8342, page 41 of 44Low NOx Pelletizing, 1⁄4 Scale Test Report 20 11 -8- 24 , Project 8342, page 42 of 44Low NOx Pelletizing, 1⁄4 Scale Test Report 20 11 -8- 24 , Project 8342, page 43 of 44Low NOx Pelletizing, 1⁄4 Scale Test Report 20 11 -8- 24 , Project 8342, page 44 of 44